Andhra Pradesh Court February 1999 Judgments

Government of A.P., Revenue Department and Others Vs. K. Venkateswara ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD248; 1999(2)ALT283

ORDERM.S. Liberhan, C.J. 1. Cause shown for restoration of the appeal is sufficient. Application is allowed. The appeal is heard on merits.2. The only question raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the High Court could not have given a finding that the land in dispute is an agricultural land and does not fall within the ambit of urban land' as defined under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The question arises in view of the following facts: The writ petitioner-respondent claiming to be owner of certain extent of the agricultural land approached the authority under the Act for permission to alienate the land. The authority passed an order dated 23-4-1997 rejecting the application to issue permission saying that the writ petitioner-respondent has not filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. The writ petitioner-respondent preferred an appeal against the said order inter alia contending that the land does...

Ch. Posham Vs. Vice-chairman and Managing Director Apsrtc Musheerabad, ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD246; 1999(2)ALT106

1. The petitioner herein was provisionally selected for appointment as Driver in the APSRTC by proceedings dated 26-3-1992. He was directed to attend the Zonal Staff Training College, Warangal for training from 1-2-1994. The petitioner failed to attend the said college for training and absented himself unauthorisedly. However, on a representation subsequently made by him to the Minister for Tribal Welfare in the year 1996 he was treated as a fresh case and called for training along with the fresh batch of newly selected Drivers. Accordingly he was sent for training in the month of November, 1996. After completion of the training, the posting order was given to him on 11-1-1997, posting him to the Bhainsa Depot in the Adilabad District. The petitioner, however, failed to report for duty at Bhainsa. After the lapse of more than nine months he reported for duty on 27-9-1997 along with a medical certificate stating that he fell sick and he could not, therefore, report for duty earlier. He ...

Kollam Brahmananda Reddy Vs. State of A.P

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD405; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)525; 1999CriLJ2368

ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah in Sessions Case No.5 of 1994 dated 27-2-1998, accused No.2 has filed Criminal Appeal No.408 of 1998 and accused Nos.3 to 7 have filed Criminal Appeal No.409 of 1998. The learned Sessions Judge by his above judgment and order convicted A2 to 6for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months. Again he convicted A2 to A6 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and each of Ihem to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Ordering both sentences to run concurrently. Learned Sessions Judge convicted A7 for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorou...

Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Apseb and Anot ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. It is obvious that the order dated 1.10.1994 of the Nizamabad District Forum in IA. No. 253/1994 in CD. No. 264/1993 purporting to be under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for short), was beyond its jurisdiction. The operative portion of the order of the District Forum in CD. No. 264/1993 dated 8.6.1994 is as follows : Considering the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and the hours of consumption and the lights and fans consumed fairly 20 units a month can be arrived at. We arrived the same accordingly and direct the opposite parties to calculate the same up to disconnection for 23 months and charged and the complainant is directed to pay the arrears within a period of 1 month and so soon the payment was made, the opposite parties are directed to restore the connection i.e., on payment of re-connection charges also. In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly but in the circumstances no costs. As this was not complied with the comp...

Radiant Cables Limited Vs. Hindustan Copper Limited and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. Complainant is not present and there is no representation on its behalf. We heard the learned Counsel for the opposite parties Mr. Mohan Rao. He submits that the complainant purchased copper wire rods/bars from the 1st opposite party i.e., Hindustan Copper Limited, for a commercial purpose, namely, manufacturing of copper wires and that, therefore, it does not fall within the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for short). He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in LaxmiEngineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=1995 (2) CPR 11 (SC). The Supreme Court observed in that case that the expression commercial purpose was not defined in the Act and that in the absence of a definition the ordinary meaning has to be applied. The Supreme Court referred to the various dictionary meanings and held as follows : The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view...

G. Ramesh Vs. Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD242; 1999(2)ALT124

ORDER1. Rule Nisi. Mrs. Jyothi Kiran, Standing Counsel for APSRTC, took notice for the respondents. The writ petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner claims to have made an application for the post of Conductor in response to employment notification issued by APSRTC dated 25-1-1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that certain other applicants have received the call letters but not the petitioner. Solely on this basis, the Court cannot issue a direction to consider the case of the petitioner. It is permissible for the employer to short-list the applicants and they may send call letters only to the relatively more meritorious applicants for interview and test. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is entitled to be considered and he is not considered by the respondent - recruiting agency, it is always open to the petitioner to assail the select list when the Corporation prepares that list after interview and test. Reserving t...

Kota Peda Nagesh Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(2)ALD383; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)519; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)364; 1999CriLJ2051

ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J 1. Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.300 of 1994 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam is the appellant before us.2. Originally, he along with three others were tried for the following charges:A1 to A4 : UnderSection 447 of IPCA1 : Under Sections 302 and 324 IPCA2 to A4 : Under Seclion 302 r/w Sec. 34 IPCA2 : Under Section 324 of IPCA3 and A4 : Under Section 323 of IPC The Court below on an appreciation of the entire evidence found Accused No.1 guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him toundergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. However, the Court below acquitted Al from other charges while acquitting the other accused from all the charges levelled against them.3. The substance of the chargesagainst the accused is that on 3-6-1994 atabout 6.30 p.m. at Pokkunur village, all theaccused with a common intention, ...

M/S. Shirdi Traders Vs. the Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Com ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

K. Ranga Rao, Member: 1. The allegations in this complaint filed under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for short) are stated briefly as follows : The complainant i.e. M/s. Shirdi Traders, Kharnmam is a trader in Neem fruit and its products like Neem oil extracted by solvent extraction method. The complainant purchased Neem fruit from various sources and stored them in his godown for future use. There is a risk of spontaneous combustion due to heat generated by natural process on account of storage in godowns and in such a situation the entire stock gets damaged on account of the combustion. The complainant took Fire Policy C from the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kharnmam (1st opposite party) for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) covering the risk of special perils like terrorism and spontaneous combustion apart from other risks covered by the policy and the policy was for a period from 23.6.1992 to 22.6.1993 and its number is 431401/102/...

Commissioner of Income Tax, Ap-i, Hyderabad Vs. M/S. Orbit Travel and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD343

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. Inthese petitions filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. I under Section 256(2) of Income Tax Act, the Revenue seeks reference of the following questions :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ITAT was correct in law in holding that the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer in determining the income of the assessee under Section 115-J is a debatable one, though the issue was settled by the A.P. High Court's decision in the case of V.V. Tram Investments (P) Ltd. : [1994]207ITR508(AP) ; (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding thatthe decision of the A.P. High Court referred to above is not applicable to the assessee's case, since the decision was rendered subsequent to processing the return under Section 143(1)(a); 2. However in JTC No.94 of 1998, the following question was framed:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct...

Sneha Industries and Others Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD434; 1999(3)ALT344; [1999]98CompCas564(AP)

ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993', hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The petitioners have obtained loan from the ist respondent-bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank') and on account of non-payment of the same, the bank had filed OS No.220/95 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge,Ranga Reddy District for recovery of Rs.8,35,590-72 ps. The loan being a secured one, preliminary decree was passed by the Civil Court on 14-7-1997 to pay the suit amount of Rs.8,35,590.72 ps. with 17.75% interest from 5-6-1995 i.e. the date of filing of the suit to the date of the decree. As the said amount has not been paid, final decree proceedings under Order XXXIV Rule 5 of CPC were initiated by the bank for recovery of the amount by sale of the properties. By the time, final decree proceedings wer...